nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Turkey shoots down Russian fighter plane

snubbleste

- The Russian defence ministry has confirmed that its SU-24 fighter jet was shot down near Syria's border with Turkey.
- Turkey says the plane violated its airspace, but Russia denies this.
- Russia has said the plane was shot down from the ground, while Turkey says its fighter planes downed the plane.
- Turkey says they gave 10 warnings before shooting down the plane.
- Russia has confirmed that the two pilots ejected themselves, but their whereabouts and fate are not yet known.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-34908469
Get your iodine tablets out, people!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pablo128

Yakkyda wrote: »

[ If a party had someone of the calibre of a Trump or a Putin I'd vote, until then, I'll spoil my vote.

Bahaha! Trump?!? That fcukin clown? Chap hasn't got clue. And Putin? Russias modern day dictator? Fine lads you look up to there.

As for spoiling your vote... Jesus, if you don't vote, please don't be whinging about the government as you purposely decided to not have a say in its election. Put up or shut up, run in the general election if you feel so strongly that nobody else is worthy of your vote.[/QUOTE]

If you don't vote, someone gets that vote. If you spoil your vote, no-one gets it. I think that's what the poster was inferring to.

Wizard!

paleoperson

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently it maybe true but it's ok for assad to buy oil and gas from isis with Putin's money

That's secondary though. If I give money to someone, I'm not directly responsible for what they do with it.

With US wheeling and dealing shenanigans with the likes of Saudi Arabia I wouldn't be bringing that up if you're going for a western slant on things.

Wizard!

I know, it has nothing to do with the downed jet...
http://anonhq.com/video-one-year-murder-journalist-revealed-isis-turkey-us-link-msm-wh-silent/

Clampdown

It was revenge for Thanksgiving. They just got their global superpowers mixed up.

Hande hoche!

Well the Russian embassy seems to have a sense of humour.
http://i.imgur.com/Ec5Z2qF.jpg

black_frosch

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Well the Russian embassy seems to have a sense of humour.
http://i.imgur.com/Ec5Z2qF.jpg

He who laughs last laughs longer.

robindch

RobertKK wrote: »

Putin has accused Turkey of buying oil from ISIS.

Presumably Putin wants Turkey to buy oil from him instead.

gandalf

robindch wrote: »

Presumably Putin wants Turkey to buy oil from him instead.

Putin wants ANYONE to buy oil from him LOL!

snubbleste

RobertKK wrote: »

Putin has accused Turkey of buying oil from ISIS.

Turkey sez: Prove it!

Interesting times ahead. I expect Russian paratroopers to seize Clan Erdogan oil tankers as they enter international waters and openly prove that Turkey supports IS

Gatling

snubbleste wrote: »

Turkey sez: Prove it!

Interesting times ahead. I expect Russian paratroopers to seize Clan Erdogan oil tankers as they enter international waters and openly prove that Turkey supports IS

Russia won't they prefer operation muddying the waters as they used in Crimea, East Ukraine and the shooting down of flight MH17,
Put enough bullshít our and people will believe the propaganda.

All the emphasis is on Turkey and isis and not why was a russian plane in turkey as confirmed by the Americans and still denied by the Kremlin

JPNelsforearm

Gatling wrote: »

Russia won't they prefer operation muddying the waters as they used in Crimea, East Ukraine and the shooting down of flight MH17,
Put enough bullshít our and people will believe the propaganda.

All the emphasis is on Turkey and isis and not why was a russian plane in turkey as confirmed by the Americans and still denied by the Kremlin

"In Turkey", for a maximum of 17 seconds........ The issue is Turkey and ISIS, not a Russian pilots actions

StewartGriffin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If a party had someone of the calibre of a Trump or a Putin I'd vote, until then, I'll spoil my vote.

Do you seriously believe Trump as president of the USA would be a good thing for the World or even the USA?

Dyr

snubbleste wrote: »

Turkey sez: Prove it!

Interesting times ahead. I expect Russian paratroopers to seize Clan Erdogan oil tankers as they enter international waters and openly prove that Turkey supports IS

Hopefully the tankers have a massive E logo with a moustache underneath it

Lads in villain henchmen overalls driving them etc.

JPNelsforearm

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Do you seriously believe Trump as president of the USA would be a good thing for the World or even the USA?

Compared to literally every other candidate yes. Why not? Why is he so "terrible"?
When the establishment of both parties, the entirety of the main stream media, the jewish lobby, the immigration lobby are all united against you, you know you are doing something right.

BattleCorp

Gatling wrote: »

All the emphasis is on Turkey and isis and not why was a russian plane in turkey as confirmed by the Americans and still denied by the Kremlin

The international norm is that when a plane enters your airspace, a few jets are scrambled to escort it "off the premises" so to speak. There is no big deal, it happens regularly enough.

It isn't to blow the sh1t out of the plane for being on your territory for a few seconds. And remember that there is no reverse on a plane. The plane was actually heading out of Turkish airspace pretty much as soon as it entered it.

Turkey is lucky that it is a member of NATO. If they weren't a member of NATO, this might go very differently.

StewartGriffin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Compared to literally every other candidate yes. Why not? Why is he so "terrible"?
When the establishment of both parties, the entirety of the main stream media, the jewish lobby, the immigration lobby are all united against you, you know you are doing something right.

I may be badly misinformed but to me he comes across as a complete buffoon whose prime aim is to get attention. If he does win the nomination I would put a bet that there will be no one in America more surprised than himself. If he becomes President I wouldn't be surprised if he appoints Kim Kardashian as Chief of Staff and Kanye West chief of homeland security.

In short, he's dumb and he's dangerous.

JPNelsforearm

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I may be badly misinformed but to me he comes across as a complete buffoon whose prime aim is to get attention. If he does win the nomination I would put a bet that there will be no one in America more surprised than himself. If he becomes President I wouldn't be surprised if he appoints Kim Kardashian as Chief of Staff and Kanye West chief of homeland security.

In short, he's dumb and he's dangerous.

Again cite me examples, for the most part its media distortions. Whilst I'm not touting him as some utopian ideal for a candidate, he is saner then the rest of the field. Enforce the border, promote American jobs, re do bad trade deals, whats not to like about Trump, he has so far said he will do more good for the common American then every other candidate combined.
Trump is not dangerous, Hillary Clinton is dangerous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U

Jelle1880

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Again cite me examples, for the most part its media distortions. Whilst I'm not touting him as some utopian ideal for a candidate, he is saner then the rest of the field. Enforce the border, promote American jobs, re do bad trade deals, whats not to like about Trump, he has so far said he will do more good for the common American then every other candidate combined.
Trump is not dangerous, Hillary Clinton is dangerous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/26/donald-trump-mock-new-york-times-reporter-disability

Prime example of a good guy who really just wants America to be 'great again'.

The guy's a complete moron when it comes to politics.

There's a ton of stuff from him (and that's just in this campaign) where he shows to have 0 empathy (when asked if he feels that people on minimum wage earn too little), no clue about foreign politics (his comments about Mexico and how he will 'fix that issue' by building a big wall and having them pay for it), handling the Middle East ("I would bomb the hell out of those oilfields. I wouldn't send many troops because you won't need 'em by the time I'm finished." That wasn't dangerous I assume, right ?), the environment ("This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."),...

I'm sure the Democrats are begging for him to win the nomination, since it will ensure another Democrat president for at least 4 years.

JPNelsforearm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/26/donald-trump-mock-new-york-times-reporter-disability

Yeah right, prime example of a good guy who really just wants America to be 'great again'.

The guy's a complete moron when it comes to politics.

Irrelevant, who cares, hes a brash asshole, you take the bad with the good. Hillary Clinton was literally joyous about participating in the death and destruction of a country, she has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Libyans on her hands. Donald Trump was mean to someone, man up, political correctness is bull****.

Jelle1880

So you want a president that insults people, simply because you don't like political correctness.

Kinda glad you have zero say in that. It does matter since that would be the face of an entire country. He's the type that would go up to a foreign head of state and make jokes about their ethnicity.

Clinton is not my favourite, she is however a seasoned politician who will know what she is talking about compared to a blowhard billionaire who thinks you can run a country like a company.

edit: As for Clinton supposedly joking about the many deaths in Lybia. Where do you get that from ? She is showing that she is happy Ghadaffi is dead. That's pretty harsh, but that's not what you're making it out to be. I'm sure a lot of people all over the world weren't too upset when he was killed, the man was a monster.

Gatling

BattleCorp wrote: »

The international norm is that when a plane enters your airspace, a few jets are scrambled to escort it "off the premises" so to speak. There is no big deal, it happens regularly enough.

So why is russia lying about been their in the first place

sparksfly

Putin will not do anything rash.
He has handled endless provocation for years without much bother. NATO have missiles pointed at him on most of his borders. He has not responded with missile bases outside his own territory.

He has had a forced regime change on his doorstep where he simply whipped back Crimea and secured his interests.

He pretty much ignored the wests destruction of the middle east until his own interests were threatened. His intervention has angered NATO in their quest for greater carnage and destabilization.

Their shooting down of his aircraft will only hurt that fleabox Turkey.

Further escalation would only play into the NATO warmongers hands.

JPNelsforearm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So you want a president that insults people, simply because you don't like political correctness.

Kinda glad you have zero say in that. It does matter since that would be the face of an entire country. He's the type that would go up to a foreign head of state and make jokes about their ethnicity.

Clinton is not my favourite, she is however a seasoned politician who will know what she is talking about compared to a blowhard billionaire who thinks you can run a country like a company.

edit: As for Clinton supposedly joking about the many deaths in Lybia. Where do you get that from ? She is showing that she is happy Ghadaffi is dead. That's pretty harsh, but that's not what you're making it out to be. I'm sure a lot of people all over the world weren't too upset when he was killed, the man was a monster.

Once again it boils down to having an aversion to a guy who says mean things and hurts feels, vs a woman who openly gloats and participated in the destruction of one of the most civilised and developed nations in Africa.... Clinton is literally responsible for a nations destruction, Donald Trump is a successful businessman who says mean things.. I know who I am afraid of

Jelle1880

How is Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, directly responsible for 'a nation's destruction' ?

Maybe you need a refresher but the civil war in Lybia was already in full swing when the West intervened and it was Lybia's representative (afterwards followed by the Arab League) to the UN that asked for a no-fly zone to be implemented. And it was Sarkozy who pushed hardest to have Ghadaffi removed from power, not the US despite what you probably believe, with French troops firstly entering Lybia to engage in combat.

The US was very careful when establishing a no-fly zone and ensured they had Arab participation first, since they didn't want to simply violate Lybia's sovereignty just like that.

You seem to use the same logic that is used when people talk about Iraq, how good it was under Saddam while conveniently brushing all the crimes committed by Saddam, Ghadaffi,... under the carpet.

Both of them were rather old when they died, both were 69 and would likely not have been in power for much longer. In Iraq you had Saddam's bat**** crazy sons who would have no doubt plunged the country in civil war in their fight for the throne, in Lybia there were already multiple factions battling Ghadaffi who no doubt would have done the same there if he had died peacefully.

It's all very easy saying that without international intervention we wouldn't have the mess we have now, but you can't prove that.

So to sum it up: You're pretty much wrong about everything you said about how Lybia was plunged into a mess due to the 2011 military strikes by Western countries and some Arab allies.

And the reason I don't like Trump is because his level of knowledge about these things probably extends to about the same.

ohnonotgmail

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Once again it boils down to having an aversion to a guy who says mean things and hurts feels, vs a woman who openly gloats and participated in the destruction of one of the most civilised and developed nations in Africa.... Clinton is literally responsible for a nations destruction, Donald Trump is a successful businessman who says mean things.. I know who I am afraid of

certainly successful for him. I'm not sure all of his investors or bankers would agree. Though, to be fair i would be terrified of either of them sitting in the oval office. Both of them are unsuitable.

JPNelsforearm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

How is Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, directly responsible for 'a nation's destruction' ?

Maybe you need a refresher but the civil war in Lybia was already in full swing when the West intervened and it was Lybia's representative (afterwards followed by the Arab League) to the UN that asked for a no-fly zone to be implemented. And it was Sarkozy who pushed hardest to have Ghadaffi removed from power, not the US despite what you probably believe, with French troops firstly entering Lybia to engage in combat.

The US was very careful when establishing a no-fly zone and ensured they had Arab participation first, since they didn't want to simply violate Lybia's sovereignty just like that.

You seem to use the same logic that is used when people talk about Iraq, how good it was under Saddam while conveniently brushing all the crimes committed by Saddam, Ghadaffi,... under the carpet.

Both of them were rather old when they died, both were 69 and would likely not have been in power for much longer. In Iraq you had Saddam's bat**** crazy sons who would have no doubt plunged the country in civil war in their fight for the throne, in Lybia there were already multiple factions battling Ghadaffi who no doubt would have done the same there if he had died peacefully.

It's all very easy saying that without international intervention we wouldn't have the mess we have now, but you can't prove that.

So to sum it up: You're pretty much wrong about everything you said about how Lybia was plunged into a mess due to the 2011 military strikes by Western countries and some Arab allies.

And the reason I don't like Trump is because his level of knowledge about these things probably extends to about the same.

Yes you can, you look at Libya before foreign mercenaries were inserted and then look at it after. The "civil war" was over, the West's pet mercenaries had been mopped up to the East of the country, then the "no fly zone" was implemented and it was curtains for civilised Libya. You are basically parroting the neo con/western liberal/guardian version of events, thats not how it happened at all.

Also LOL at "the arab league", mentioning them as if its not just a bunch of Islamist throat cutters.

In the Arab world a Dictator is the best option when the alternative is Islamists

Jelle1880

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Yes you can, you look at Libya before foreign mercenaries were inserted and then look at it after. The "civil war" was over, the West's pet mercenaries had been mopped up to the East of the country, then the "no fly zone" was implemented and it was curtains for civilised Libya. You are basically parroting the neo con/western liberal/guardian version of events, thats not how it happened at all.

Also LOL at "the arab league", mentioning them as if its not just a bunch of Islamist throat cutters.

In the Arab world a Dictator is the best option when the alternative is Islamists

At least we've now established you don't really know what happened pre the intervention by Western troops.

At no point was the civil war 'over'. In early March of 2011 anti-Ghadaffi forces held 1/3rd of Lybia, if you see that as 'the civil war was over' then you need to re-evaluate your ideas about war.
You waffle on about how the West intervened and messed everything up, you seem perfectly fine with what Ghadaffi did to his own people ?

It will probably interest you that Putin backed the NTC, who opposed Ghadaffi as well.
Hindsight is a great thing, but at the time pretty much everyone was agreed that he had to go.

As for your claim that I just 'parrot' neo con/liberal/guardian stuff (since when are those in any way similar ?)... When I have a look at some of your other posts it seems you're the one adhering to certain neo con ideas.

JPNelsforearm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

At least we've now established you don't really know what happened pre the intervention by Western troops.

At no point was the civil war 'over'. In early March of 2011 anti-Ghadaffi forces held 1/3rd of Lybia, if you see that as 'the civil war was over' then you need to re-evaluate your ideas about war.
You waffle on about how the West intervened and messed everything up, you seem perfectly fine with what Ghadaffi did to his own people ?

It will probably interest you that Putin backed the NTC, who opposed Ghadaffi as well.
Hindsight is a great thing, but at the time pretty much everyone was agreed that he had to go.

As for your claim that I just 'parrot' neo con/liberal/guardian stuff (since when are those in any way similar ?)... When I have a look at some of your other posts it seems you're the one adhering to certain neo con ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_Civil_War_before_military_intervention

Here you go, have a gander. Gaddafi woulkd have wiped them out without Western intervention, mores the pity, Islamism is cancer. The MSM, the guardian, Neo-cons, liberals all backed regime change in Libya.

As for my posts being indicative of a neo con, lol, because I oppose Islamists?

Jelle1880

Yes, he would have wiped them out just like the rebels would have wiped him out a few months earlier ? The conflict was going up and down, at one time Tripoli was also in the hands of rebels. There was no way saying who would have won or lost.

The fact pretty much everyone backed regime change in Lybia maybe means that people genuinely thought it would be the best thing ?
I mean of course if you base your opinions solely on going against the grain then I can see why you would throw neo cons and the guardian in the same boat.

And at least be honest and say it's not just Islamists, it's all muslims innit ?

edit: The hilarious part is that your own link actually proves my point.
The intervention and the no-fly zone came into effect halfway through March, when there was no clear proof who would win.

Ghadaffi's forces had taken back some towns and cities but the rebels still held large parts of the country, with Egypt providing weapons to them as well.

So again, your claim that 'the civil war was over' doesn't hold up.